The U.S. Navy Is Sinking in Middle East Sand

[Anonymous]

The U.S. has a range of options for dealing with Yemen’s Houthis, none of them good. But a long campaign of naval strikes and interception against them, as is now being floated by the Biden Administration and outside experts, is certainly the worst response of all. That’s because it means the U.S. Navy continuing to sink into Middle East sand for an unachievable goal all while losing ground in the far-more important Pacific.
Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping have summoned Tomahawk cruise missiles and Top Gun pilots from the deck of the USS Eisenhower. The newly-renamed Operation Poseidon Archer is just two weeks old, and the Biden Administration is already drawing up plans for a longer effort, despite admitting that defeating the Houthis is not viable. There is a risk of escalation in the Middle East, especially with the death of three U.S. soldiers after a drone strike in Jordan. But the effects on the U.S. Navy will be predictable, because they have all happened before: overworked ships and sailors, expenditure of precious precision munitions, and a continued punt on the pivot to the Pacific….
…. For the past two decades, throughout the “Global War on Terror” (GWOT), the answer has usually been the Middle East. From 2001 to 2015, United States Central Command (CENTCOM), which includes North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia, had at least one carrier assigned at all times. As late as 2020, the Middle East drew almost as much carrier presence as the entire Pacific.

https://time.com/6693320/us-navy-yemen-middle-east/

Brings up some interesting points. What are the missions objectives and are the objectives attainable? All indicators are no.

[Anonymous]

I suppose the other option is to simply close off the Red Sea to commercial transport. That harms the Middle East, Africa and China more than the US. I guess I would be fine with that.

[Anonymous]

Got cut off
This is an interesting article. What is the navel’s mission and are the objectives achievable? The answers seems to be no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suppose the other option is to simply close off the Red Sea to commercial transport. That harms the Middle East, Africa and China more than the US. I guess I would be fine with that.

This is more a concern to Europe vs the US. The US is a proxy for Israel. Reducing our visibility, military actions and a ceasefire in Gaza will reduce this threat. Our military actions do the opposite.

[Anonymous]

Because of this relentless demand, carriers often have their deployments extended or are “double-pumped,” conducting back-to-back deployments without a major maintenance period in between. The last three carriers deployed in the Mediterranean were all extended: the USS Gerald R. Ford was at sea for 239 days, the USS Harry S. Truman for 285, and the USS George H. W. Bush for 257. This overwork has consequences. After the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower did two sets of double pumps, its subsequent 14-month maintenance period ballooned to 23 months because of wear and tear.
The utility and survivability of carriers in a major war are also in question. In 1982, the legendary Admiral Hyman Rickover stunned Congress by testifying that in a war with the Soviet Union, U.S. aircraft carriers would survive for “48 hours.” In the four decades since, the carrier’s vulnerability has dramatically increased. Anti-ship missiles have become far more accurate and long-ranged since Rickover’s testimony, as the unrefueled range of an aircraft carrier’s air wing has shrunk from well over 1,000 nautical miles to barely 600 now. This leaves carrier commanders with two unpalatable options: stay out of enemy range but become operationally irrelevant or sail close enough but put a $13 billion vessel and its 5,000 sailors at risk. The narrow waters of the Persian Gulf and chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz and Yemen’s Bab-el Mandeb only magnify this dilemma.[/quote]
https://time.com/6693320/us-navy-yemen-middle-east/

Is Israel worth the Pacific? Given what we saw in the Black Sea are aircraft carriers too vulnerable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suppose the other option is to simply close off the Red Sea to commercial transport. That harms the Middle East, Africa and China more than the US. I guess I would be fine with that.

The news media glosses over this, but the Houthi are selective in what ships they interdict:

“The simplest solution that allows ships to pass safely while crossing the Red Sea is to raise a sign reading ‘We have no relation to Israel’,” group member Mohamed Ali al-Houthi said in a statement.

​​​​​​​“This solution was effective as 64 ships have managed to cross the sea safely while raising this sign,” he added."

So this would essentially stop being our/Europe's problem if we cut Israel loose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suppose the other option is to simply close off the Red Sea to commercial transport. That harms the Middle East, Africa and China more than the US. I guess I would be fine with that.

The news media glosses over this, but the Houthi are selective in what ships they interdict:

“The simplest solution that allows ships to pass safely while crossing the Red Sea is to raise a sign reading ‘We have no relation to Israel’,” group member Mohamed Ali al-Houthi said in a statement.

​​​​​​​“This solution was effective as 64 ships have managed to cross the sea safely while raising this sign,” he added."

So this would essentially stop being our/Europe's problem if we cut Israel loose.

They will stop if there is a ceasefire in Gaza. We all know that is a bridge too far. What the f is wrong with Biden? Instead of a ceasefire we have to expand the war, divert resources from confronting China and kick over hornet’s nets so Israel can kill civilians?

[Anonymous]

Well this old thread seems relevant as a third jet goes in the drink

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well this old thread seems relevant as a third jet goes in the drink

Still blowing up mud huts and 1996 Toyota Tacoma picks with $10 million missiles. Time to send this bill to Israel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suppose the other option is to simply close off the Red Sea to commercial transport. That harms the Middle East, Africa and China more than the US. I guess I would be fine with that.

JD Vance, is that you?

[Anonymous]

Can the Royal Navy rotate in to give the United States a break?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suppose the other option is to simply close off the Red Sea to commercial transport. That harms the Middle East, Africa and China more than the US. I guess I would be fine with that.

JD Vance, is that you?

Despise JD but at least someone is realistic about the downsides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can the Royal Navy rotate in to give the United States a break?

No and if they could why would they? We are not allies with the UK anymore. If Israel would just stop killing people and withdraw from Gaza, Lebanon and Syria there would be no problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can the Royal Navy rotate in to give the United States a break?

No and if they could why would they? We are not allies with the UK anymore. If Israel would just stop killing people and withdraw from Gaza, Lebanon and Syria there would be no problems.

Hopefully they can finish up their work over there soon so we can all move on to their final target, Iran.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can the Royal Navy rotate in to give the United States a break?

No and if they could why would they? We are not allies with the UK anymore. If Israel would just stop killing people and withdraw from Gaza, Lebanon and Syria there would be no problems.

Why am I paying for Israel? They can defend their own ships.